Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 5, 2016 | 讻状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 54

Further discussions about the different opinions in different cases when one does something wrong accidentally – do we obligate him or not.

Study Guide Gittin 54


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇砖讘转讜转

But they do not count from Shabbat, as there is no significance to the day of the week on which the tree was planted, and consequently no one remembers that the tree was planted on Shabbat.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讛砖讘转讜转

Alternatively, the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: Jews are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year, but they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but he imposes no such penalty for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬拽诇注 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬 谞讟注 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 砖转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 砖转讗

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Rabbi Meir adding the second reason, introduced with the term alternatively? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: And if you would say to contest the first reason: Jews also count from Shabbat, and unless the tree is uprooted, people will remember that it was planted on Shabbat, as at times the thirtieth day before Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat. As, if he planted the tree on that day, the time from when he planted it counts for him as a full year with regard to the prohibition of fruit that grows during the first three years after the tree was planted. And if he did not plant it on that Shabbat, but rather on the next day, the twenty-ninth day before Rosh HaShana, it does not count for him as a full year. In such a case people will remember that the tree was planted on Shabbat, and they might come to think that planting a tree on Shabbat is permitted.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讛砖讘转讜转

Consequently, Rabbi Meir adds: Come and hear that alternatively, the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: Jews are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year, but they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but not for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪讬专讗 诇讛讜 砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara continues: And there is also no contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the Sabbatical Year and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat. This is because in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 place the prohibition against desecrating the Sabbatical Year was regarded by them as a most serious one, and therefore there was no need to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration, although it is a Torah law.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讬讬专 讘专 讚讬讬专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 驻讬专讬 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讻讜讜转讱

The Gemara adduces proof that this is true: It once happened that there was a certain person who said to another to insult him: Convert [dayyar], son of a convert. In anger the second person said to the first in response: At least I don鈥檛 eat produce of the Sabbatical Year as you do. This indicates that the Sabbatical Year was treated in that place as a very serious prohibition; therefore, Rabbi Yehuda deemed it unnecessary to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 住讜诪讻讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐

The Gemara proceeds to discuss another apparent contradiction between rulings of Rabbi Meir with regard to penalties imposed for the unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 7:7): If one partook of teruma,which is the property of a priest, and it was ritually impure, he pays restitution with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. What is the halakha if he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce? Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce unintentionally, his payment is valid. But if he did so intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say: Although both in this case and in that case his payment is valid, the Sages imposed a penalty and said that he returns and pays restitution a second time with ritually pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

And we discussed the following question concerning the opinion of Rabbi Meir: In the case where he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce intentionally, why is his payment not valid? On the contrary, blessing should come upon him, as he partook of something that is not fit for the priest to partake of even during the days of his impurity, since it is prohibited for a priest to partake of impure teruma, whether he himself is pure or impure, and he pays restitution to him with something, i.e., impure, non-sacred produce, which is at least fit for him to partake of during the days of his impurity.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讛讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

And Rava said, and some say it is unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If one partook of ritually impure teruma, he can pay restitution with anything, even impure, non-sacred produce. If he partook of ritually pure teruma, he pays restitution with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. The baraita continues: What is the halakha if he paid restitution for ritually pure teruma with ritually impure, non-sacred produce? There is a tannaitic dispute about this. Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce unintentionally, his payment is valid. But if he did so intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case, his payment is valid, but the Sages imposed a penalty and said that he returns and pays restitution a second time with ritually pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讗 讘拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 (讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽谞住讜)

And Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Here, the practical difference between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis relates to the question of whether or not the Sages penalized an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. Rabbi Meir holds that they did not penalize an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, and the Rabbis say that they penalized him. Consequently, Rabbi Meir does not impose a penalty for an unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law, as by Torah law one can pay restitution to a priest with anything if he partakes of teruma. This contradicts what was stated previously, that in the case of a violation of rabbinic law, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty even for an unintentional offense.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to pay; should we arise and penalize him? It is specifically with regard to this case that Rabbi Meir holds that no penalty is imposed, as his mistake was made in the course of performing a laudatory action. By contrast, in cases where one rendered another鈥檚 produce impure and the like, there is a penalty, as the mistake was made while performing an action he should not have been performing.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

The Gemara tries to bring proof concerning the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Meir that a penalty is imposed in a case of an unintentional transgression of a rabbinical law: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: In the case of blood of an offering that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unintentionally, the offering is accepted and achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In any event, the tanna of this baraita did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, and this sprinkling of blood is prohibited by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇讻驻讜专讬 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: How can these cases be compared? There, the person intends to do a mitzva and atone; should we arise and penalize him? Here too, the mistake was made while performing a laudatory act. In such a case, even Rabbi Meir agrees that that an unintentional offender is not penalized due to an intentional offender.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪注砖专 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇转拽讜谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara attempts to adduce further proof: Come and hear what was taught in a mishna (Terumot 2:3): With regard to one who tithes produce on Shabbat, which is prohibited by rabbinic law because it appears as though he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he did this unintentionally, he may consume the produce, as it has been tithed and rendered fit for consumption. But if he did this intentionally, he may not consume it. Apparently, the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, although tithing produce on Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to do a worthy deed and repair the produce by tithing it; should we arise and penalize him? As above, Rabbi Meir would agree that in such a case the unintentional offender is not penalized.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讻诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇讟讛讜专讬 诪讗谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara brings yet another proof: Come and hear what was taught in that same mishna (Terumot 2:3): With regard to one who immerses utensils in a ritual bath on Shabbat, which is also prohibited by the Sages because it appears as if he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he immerses them unintentionally, he may use them. But if he immerses them intentionally, he may not use them. Here too the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. The Gemara answers as before: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to do a praiseworthy act and purify the utensils; should we arise and penalize him? The same distinction stated previously applies in this mishna as well.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: And they raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to matters that are prohibited only by rabbinic law. As it is taught in a baraita:

谞驻诇讜 讜谞转驻爪注讜 讗讞讚 砖讜讙讙 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬注诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬注诇讜

If there are nuts from Perekh that are orla, and they fell into other nuts and became intermingled with them, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the nuts that are orla are few in number. This is because they are deemed significant when they are whole and they are not nullified in a mixture. If the nuts were broken afterward, whether they were broken unintentionally or they were broken intentionally, they are not nullified in the mixture, despite the fact that they are no longer regarded as significant and should therefore be subject to nullification; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: If they were broken unintentionally, they are nullified, but if they were broken intentionally, they are not nullified.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讚 讘转专讬 讘讟诇 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讜拽讗 拽谞讬住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬

The Gemara asks: But here, by Torah law the forbidden substance is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one in two, i.e., when the majority of the mixture is permitted, and it was the Sages who decreed that significant items are not subject to nullification. And nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda penalizes an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. This seems to contradict what was stated previously, that Rabbi Yehuda does not impose a penalty for an unintentional offense if the transgression involves the violation of a rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: There, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, that a penalty was imposed in the case where he unintentionally broke the nuts due to the concern that without a penalty he will come to employ artifice and intentionally break the nuts in order to effect nullification of the Perekh nuts.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 谞讟讬注讛 砖诇 注专诇讛 讜砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讟讬注讜转 讗讞专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诇拽讟 讜讗诐 诇讬拽讟 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇诇拽讟

The Gemara discusses the previous baraita: And they raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:6): If a sapling that has the status of orla or a grapevine sapling has the status of diverse kinds in a vineyard, e.g., one vine in a vineyard had grain planted near it and become prohibited, and the grain was then uprooted, became intermingled with other saplings, and one does not know which is the forbidden sapling, he may not gather the produce of any of the saplings. And if he gathered the produce, the forbidden produce is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one part forbidden produce in two hundred parts permitted produce, provided that he did not intend to gather the produce in order that the forbidden produce will become nullified.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪转讻讜讬谉 诇诇拽讟 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he intentionally gathered the produce in order that the forbidden produce would become nullified, the forbidden produce is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one part forbidden produce in two hundred parts permitted produce. This seems to contradict what Rabbi Yosei said in the baraita cited previously with regard to nuts, that if the nuts were broken intentionally, they are not nullified.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讘谞讟讬注讛 讗讞转 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讘谞讟讬注讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to that mishna in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion that Rava says: There is a presumption that a person does not render his entire vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling. Therefore, it can be assumed that one does not intentionally plant a sapling that has the status of orla or of diverse kinds in a vineyard among other saplings without properly marking it. If he did so, it is uncommon, and the Sages did not impose a penalty in an uncommon case. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a presumption that a person does not render his vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling, and therefore the Sages did not impose a penalty.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖驻讙诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: If priests disqualified an offering with improper intention in the Temple, by expressing, while sacrificing the offering, the intention of sprinkling the blood of the offering, burning its fats on the altar, or consuming it, after its appointed time, and they did so intentionally, they are liable to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讘讟讛专讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 谞讟诪讗讜 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 谞转驻讙诇讜 谞讗诪谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讝讘讞讬诐 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:2): If one was preparing ritually pure food with another, and he said to him: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you became ritually impure, or if he was preparing sacrifices with another person, and he said to him: The sacrifices that I prepared with you became disqualified due to improper intention, he is deemed credible with regard to these claims. But if he said to the other: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure, or the sacrifices that I prepared with you on such and such a day became disqualified due to improper intention, he is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause, that in the first clause he is deemed credible, whereas in the latter clause he is not? Abaye says that the principle is as follows: As long as it is still in his power to do what he said he had done, he is deemed credible. Therefore, while he is involved in the preparation of the ritually pure food or the sacrifices, and consequently he is still able to disqualify them, he is deemed credible when he says that they already became disqualified. But once he makes a statement about actions he performed in the past and he is no longer able to disqualify the objects of those actions, he is not deemed credible.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讘转专 讛讻讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rava said: Both the first clause and the latter clause deal with testimony about the past. The difference is that the latter clause is referring to a case where he found him a first time and told him nothing about disqualification, and then afterward he found him a second time and told him what had purportedly happened. In such a case he is suspected of lying, as, if it were true that the pure food had become impure or the offering had become disqualified, he would have imparted that information earlier. Since he had said nothing at the time, and he spoke up only later, it is assumed that he was lying and that his intention was merely to annoy the other.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗住讬 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛转讜专讛 讛讗诪讬谞转讜

搂 It is related that there was a certain person who said to another: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure. The owner of the food came before Rabbi Ami, asking him what to do. Rabbi Ami said to him: You may continue to treat the food as ritually pure, as in principle, the other person is not deemed credible. Rabbi Asi said before him: My teacher, do you say this? So said Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yosei: What can I do when I see that the Torah deemed him credible in such a case?

讛讬讻谉 讛讗诪讬谞转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讻讬 讗诪专 驻讙讜诇 诪讛讬诪谉 讜诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara asks: Where does it deem him credible? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna says: The High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove this point, as when he says that he had improper intent, he is deemed credible. And from where do we know that he had improper intent? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd no man shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement for the holy place鈥 (Leviticus 16:17)? Rather, is it not because he is deemed credible in his testimony even after he performed the service, and it is no longer in his power to disqualify the offering?

讜讚诇诪讗 讚砖诪注谞讬讛 讚驻讙讬诇 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖诪注谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讚讚诇诪讗 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: But perhaps we heard that he disqualified the offering with improper intention, i.e., maybe he stated his intention out loud while performing the service and it was heard outside. The Gemara answers: Were he not deemed credible about the matter, then even if we heard him voice his intention, he would also not be deemed credible. Why? The reason is that perhaps he actually sprinkled the blood with the proper intention, and it was only afterward that he said what he said, and at that time he could no longer disqualify the offering. Rather, he is certainly deemed credible when he says that he disqualified the offering with improper intention.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讞讝讬谞讬讛 讘驻讬砖驻砖 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises another objection: But perhaps we saw what the High Priest was doing through a small door, through which it was possible to monitor his actions, and we saw that he sprinkled the blood with improper intention. The Gemara says: This is difficult for Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna, as his proof can be refuted.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘转讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘转讬诐 诇砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讬讚 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讗转讛 诇讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛

搂 It is similarly related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: In the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not write the mentions of God鈥檚 name with the proper intention that is required when writing a holy name, and therefore the scroll is not valid. Rabbi Ami said to him: This Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is now in the buyer鈥檚 possession. Rabbi Ami said to him: You are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you admit that you wrote the Torah scroll in a faulty manner, and therefore the buyer can refuse to pay you. But you are not deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., to invalidate, the Torah scroll.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讛讬 讚讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专 讗讝讻专讜转 砖讻专 讚住驻专 转讜专讛 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讬 讛驻住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讻诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讻转讜讘讜转 诇砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Although he lost his wage with regard to the mentions of God鈥檚 name that he wrote in a faulty manner, did he lose his wage with regard to the entire Torah scroll, which he wrote correctly? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes, he lost his wage for the entire Torah scroll, as any Torah scroll in which the mentions of God鈥檚 name have not been written with the proper intention is not worth anything.

讜诇讬注讘专 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诇讬拽讚砖讬讛 讻诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But let the scribe pass a reed pen [kulemos] with additional ink over instances of God鈥檚 name and sanctify them, going over the names with the proper intention. And since there is no option to correct the Torah scroll in this manner, in accordance with whose opinion was this ruling issued? Shall we say that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

讚转谞谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讻转讜讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讟注讛 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 讘讜 讚诇转 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诪拽讚砖讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛砖诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

This is as we learned in a baraita: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text that he needed to write the name of God, spelled yod, heh, vav, heh; and he erred and intended to write Yehuda, spelled yod, heh, vav, dalet, heh, but he made a mistake when writing Yehuda and did not place a dalet in the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then he should pass over it with a reed pen. He writes over what was written and sanctifies it with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds a second layer of ink, the name has not been written in the optimal manner. The fact that Rabbi Ami did not offer the option to rewrite the mentions of God鈥檚 name to correct the scroll indicates that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讚讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪谞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: You can even say that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but there is a distinction between the cases. Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only with regard to a single mention of God鈥檚 name that was initially written without the proper intention. In such a case, it is possible to pass over the name with additional ink and thereby sanctify it. But passing over all of the holy names found in an entire Torah scroll is not possible. Why not? Because if the scribe would pass his pen over all the names of God found in a Torah scroll, it would look speckled, as the instances of Divine Name would be written with a thicker layer of ink and stand out.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘转讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讙讜讬诇讬谉 砖诇讜 诇讗 注讬讘讚转讬诐 诇砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讬讚 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专讱 讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛

It is further related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: With regard to the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not process its parchment with the proper intention. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is in the possession of the buyer. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Since you are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you have admitted that the parchment upon which the Torah scroll was written is invalid, you are deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., disqualify, the Torah scroll.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 54

讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇砖讘转讜转

But they do not count from Shabbat, as there is no significance to the day of the week on which the tree was planted, and consequently no one remembers that the tree was planted on Shabbat.

讚讘专 讗讞专 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讛砖讘转讜转

Alternatively, the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: Jews are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year, but they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but he imposes no such penalty for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬拽诇注 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬 谞讟注 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 砖转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 砖转讗

The Gemara asks: What is the point of Rabbi Meir adding the second reason, introduced with the term alternatively? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: And if you would say to contest the first reason: Jews also count from Shabbat, and unless the tree is uprooted, people will remember that it was planted on Shabbat, as at times the thirtieth day before Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat. As, if he planted the tree on that day, the time from when he planted it counts for him as a full year with regard to the prohibition of fruit that grows during the first three years after the tree was planted. And if he did not plant it on that Shabbat, but rather on the next day, the twenty-ninth day before Rosh HaShana, it does not count for him as a full year. In such a case people will remember that the tree was planted on Shabbat, and they might come to think that planting a tree on Shabbat is permitted.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 谞讞砖讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诇 讛砖讘转讜转

Consequently, Rabbi Meir adds: Come and hear that alternatively, the difference between Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year can be explained as follows: Jews are suspected of desecrating the Sabbatical Year, but they are not suspected of desecrating Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty for the unintentional desecration of the Sabbatical Year, but not for the unintentional desecration of Shabbat.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪讬专讗 诇讛讜 砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara continues: And there is also no contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the Sabbatical Year and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat. This is because in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 place the prohibition against desecrating the Sabbatical Year was regarded by them as a most serious one, and therefore there was no need to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration, although it is a Torah law.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讬讬专 讘专 讚讬讬专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 驻讬专讬 讚砖讘讬注讬转 讻讜讜转讱

The Gemara adduces proof that this is true: It once happened that there was a certain person who said to another to insult him: Convert [dayyar], son of a convert. In anger the second person said to the first in response: At least I don鈥檛 eat produce of the Sabbatical Year as you do. This indicates that the Sabbatical Year was treated in that place as a very serious prohibition; therefore, Rabbi Yehuda deemed it unnecessary to impose a penalty for its unintentional desecration.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 住讜诪讻讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐

The Gemara proceeds to discuss another apparent contradiction between rulings of Rabbi Meir with regard to penalties imposed for the unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 7:7): If one partook of teruma,which is the property of a priest, and it was ritually impure, he pays restitution with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. What is the halakha if he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce? Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce unintentionally, his payment is valid. But if he did so intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say: Although both in this case and in that case his payment is valid, the Sages imposed a penalty and said that he returns and pays restitution a second time with ritually pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转讘讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讚讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诇诐 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜

And we discussed the following question concerning the opinion of Rabbi Meir: In the case where he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce intentionally, why is his payment not valid? On the contrary, blessing should come upon him, as he partook of something that is not fit for the priest to partake of even during the days of his impurity, since it is prohibited for a priest to partake of impure teruma, whether he himself is pure or impure, and he pays restitution to him with something, i.e., impure, non-sacred produce, which is at least fit for him to partake of during the days of his impurity.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讬诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讛讜 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讜讙讙 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 转砖诇讜诪讬讜 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪砖诇诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉

And Rava said, and some say it is unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If one partook of ritually impure teruma, he can pay restitution with anything, even impure, non-sacred produce. If he partook of ritually pure teruma, he pays restitution with ritually pure, non-sacred produce. The baraita continues: What is the halakha if he paid restitution for ritually pure teruma with ritually impure, non-sacred produce? There is a tannaitic dispute about this. Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If he paid restitution with ritually impure, non-sacred produce unintentionally, his payment is valid. But if he did so intentionally, his payment is not valid. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case, his payment is valid, but the Sages imposed a penalty and said that he returns and pays restitution a second time with ritually pure, non-sacred produce.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讗 讘拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 (讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽谞住讜)

And Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Here, the practical difference between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis relates to the question of whether or not the Sages penalized an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. Rabbi Meir holds that they did not penalize an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, and the Rabbis say that they penalized him. Consequently, Rabbi Meir does not impose a penalty for an unintentional transgression of a rabbinic law, as by Torah law one can pay restitution to a priest with anything if he partakes of teruma. This contradicts what was stated previously, that in the case of a violation of rabbinic law, Rabbi Meir imposes a penalty even for an unintentional offense.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇砖诇讜诪讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to pay; should we arise and penalize him? It is specifically with regard to this case that Rabbi Meir holds that no penalty is imposed, as his mistake was made in the course of performing a laudatory action. By contrast, in cases where one rendered another鈥檚 produce impure and the like, there is a penalty, as the mistake was made while performing an action he should not have been performing.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

The Gemara tries to bring proof concerning the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Meir that a penalty is imposed in a case of an unintentional transgression of a rabbinical law: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: In the case of blood of an offering that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unintentionally, the offering is accepted and achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In any event, the tanna of this baraita did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, and this sprinkling of blood is prohibited by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇讻驻讜专讬 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: How can these cases be compared? There, the person intends to do a mitzva and atone; should we arise and penalize him? Here too, the mistake was made while performing a laudatory act. In such a case, even Rabbi Meir agrees that that an unintentional offender is not penalized due to an intentional offender.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪注砖专 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇转拽讜谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara attempts to adduce further proof: Come and hear what was taught in a mishna (Terumot 2:3): With regard to one who tithes produce on Shabbat, which is prohibited by rabbinic law because it appears as though he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he did this unintentionally, he may consume the produce, as it has been tithed and rendered fit for consumption. But if he did this intentionally, he may not consume it. Apparently, the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender, although tithing produce on Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to do a worthy deed and repair the produce by tithing it; should we arise and penalize him? As above, Rabbi Meir would agree that in such a case the unintentional offender is not penalized.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讟讘讬诇 讻诇讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 诇讟讛讜专讬 诪讗谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗谞谉 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬拽谞住讬讛

The Gemara brings yet another proof: Come and hear what was taught in that same mishna (Terumot 2:3): With regard to one who immerses utensils in a ritual bath on Shabbat, which is also prohibited by the Sages because it appears as if he were repairing an article that requires repair, if he immerses them unintentionally, he may use them. But if he immerses them intentionally, he may not use them. Here too the Sages did not penalize the unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. The Gemara answers as before: How can these cases be compared? There, the man intends to do a praiseworthy act and purify the utensils; should we arise and penalize him? The same distinction stated previously applies in this mishna as well.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: And they raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to matters that are prohibited only by rabbinic law. As it is taught in a baraita:

谞驻诇讜 讜谞转驻爪注讜 讗讞讚 砖讜讙讙 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬注诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬注诇讜

If there are nuts from Perekh that are orla, and they fell into other nuts and became intermingled with them, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the nuts that are orla are few in number. This is because they are deemed significant when they are whole and they are not nullified in a mixture. If the nuts were broken afterward, whether they were broken unintentionally or they were broken intentionally, they are not nullified in the mixture, despite the fact that they are no longer regarded as significant and should therefore be subject to nullification; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: If they were broken unintentionally, they are nullified, but if they were broken intentionally, they are not nullified.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讚 讘转专讬 讘讟诇 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讜拽讗 拽谞讬住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜诪讬

The Gemara asks: But here, by Torah law the forbidden substance is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one in two, i.e., when the majority of the mixture is permitted, and it was the Sages who decreed that significant items are not subject to nullification. And nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda penalizes an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. This seems to contradict what was stated previously, that Rabbi Yehuda does not impose a penalty for an unintentional offense if the transgression involves the violation of a rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: There, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, that a penalty was imposed in the case where he unintentionally broke the nuts due to the concern that without a penalty he will come to employ artifice and intentionally break the nuts in order to effect nullification of the Perekh nuts.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 谞讟讬注讛 砖诇 注专诇讛 讜砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讟讬注讜转 讗讞专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诇拽讟 讜讗诐 诇讬拽讟 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇诇拽讟

The Gemara discusses the previous baraita: And they raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:6): If a sapling that has the status of orla or a grapevine sapling has the status of diverse kinds in a vineyard, e.g., one vine in a vineyard had grain planted near it and become prohibited, and the grain was then uprooted, became intermingled with other saplings, and one does not know which is the forbidden sapling, he may not gather the produce of any of the saplings. And if he gathered the produce, the forbidden produce is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one part forbidden produce in two hundred parts permitted produce, provided that he did not intend to gather the produce in order that the forbidden produce will become nullified.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪转讻讜讬谉 诇诇拽讟 讬注诇讜 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗转讬诐

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he intentionally gathered the produce in order that the forbidden produce would become nullified, the forbidden produce is nullified if its ratio in the mixture is not more than one part forbidden produce in two hundred parts permitted produce. This seems to contradict what Rabbi Yosei said in the baraita cited previously with regard to nuts, that if the nuts were broken intentionally, they are not nullified.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讘谞讟讬注讛 讗讞转 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 讗转 讻专诪讜 讘谞讟讬注讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to that mishna in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion that Rava says: There is a presumption that a person does not render his entire vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling. Therefore, it can be assumed that one does not intentionally plant a sapling that has the status of orla or of diverse kinds in a vineyard among other saplings without properly marking it. If he did so, it is uncommon, and the Sages did not impose a penalty in an uncommon case. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a presumption that a person does not render his vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling, and therefore the Sages did not impose a penalty.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖驻讙诇讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诪讝讬讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: If priests disqualified an offering with improper intention in the Temple, by expressing, while sacrificing the offering, the intention of sprinkling the blood of the offering, burning its fats on the altar, or consuming it, after its appointed time, and they did so intentionally, they are liable to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讘讟讛专讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 谞讟诪讗讜 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 谞转驻讙诇讜 谞讗诪谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讝讘讞讬诐 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:2): If one was preparing ritually pure food with another, and he said to him: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you became ritually impure, or if he was preparing sacrifices with another person, and he said to him: The sacrifices that I prepared with you became disqualified due to improper intention, he is deemed credible with regard to these claims. But if he said to the other: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure, or the sacrifices that I prepared with you on such and such a day became disqualified due to improper intention, he is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause, that in the first clause he is deemed credible, whereas in the latter clause he is not? Abaye says that the principle is as follows: As long as it is still in his power to do what he said he had done, he is deemed credible. Therefore, while he is involved in the preparation of the ritually pure food or the sacrifices, and consequently he is still able to disqualify them, he is deemed credible when he says that they already became disqualified. But once he makes a statement about actions he performed in the past and he is no longer able to disqualify the objects of those actions, he is not deemed credible.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讘转专 讛讻讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rava said: Both the first clause and the latter clause deal with testimony about the past. The difference is that the latter clause is referring to a case where he found him a first time and told him nothing about disqualification, and then afterward he found him a second time and told him what had purportedly happened. In such a case he is suspected of lying, as, if it were true that the pure food had become impure or the offering had become disqualified, he would have imparted that information earlier. Since he had said nothing at the time, and he spoke up only later, it is assumed that he was lying and that his intention was merely to annoy the other.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讟讛专讜转 砖注砖讬转讬 注诪讱 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗住讬 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛转讜专讛 讛讗诪讬谞转讜

搂 It is related that there was a certain person who said to another: The ritually pure food that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure. The owner of the food came before Rabbi Ami, asking him what to do. Rabbi Ami said to him: You may continue to treat the food as ritually pure, as in principle, the other person is not deemed credible. Rabbi Asi said before him: My teacher, do you say this? So said Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yosei: What can I do when I see that the Torah deemed him credible in such a case?

讛讬讻谉 讛讗诪讬谞转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讻讬 讗诪专 驻讙讜诇 诪讛讬诪谉 讜诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛讬诪谉

The Gemara asks: Where does it deem him credible? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna says: The High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove this point, as when he says that he had improper intent, he is deemed credible. And from where do we know that he had improper intent? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd no man shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement for the holy place鈥 (Leviticus 16:17)? Rather, is it not because he is deemed credible in his testimony even after he performed the service, and it is no longer in his power to disqualify the offering?

讜讚诇诪讗 讚砖诪注谞讬讛 讚驻讙讬诇 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讛讬诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖诪注谞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讚讚诇诪讗 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: But perhaps we heard that he disqualified the offering with improper intention, i.e., maybe he stated his intention out loud while performing the service and it was heard outside. The Gemara answers: Were he not deemed credible about the matter, then even if we heard him voice his intention, he would also not be deemed credible. Why? The reason is that perhaps he actually sprinkled the blood with the proper intention, and it was only afterward that he said what he said, and at that time he could no longer disqualify the offering. Rather, he is certainly deemed credible when he says that he disqualified the offering with improper intention.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讞讝讬谞讬讛 讘驻讬砖驻砖 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises another objection: But perhaps we saw what the High Priest was doing through a small door, through which it was possible to monitor his actions, and we saw that he sprinkled the blood with improper intention. The Gemara says: This is difficult for Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna, as his proof can be refuted.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘转讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘转讬诐 诇砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讬讚 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讗转讛 诇讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛

搂 It is similarly related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: In the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not write the mentions of God鈥檚 name with the proper intention that is required when writing a holy name, and therefore the scroll is not valid. Rabbi Ami said to him: This Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is now in the buyer鈥檚 possession. Rabbi Ami said to him: You are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you admit that you wrote the Torah scroll in a faulty manner, and therefore the buyer can refuse to pay you. But you are not deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., to invalidate, the Torah scroll.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讛讬 讚讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专 讗讝讻专讜转 砖讻专 讚住驻专 转讜专讛 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讬 讛驻住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 砖讻诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讝讻专讜转 砖诇讜 讻转讜讘讜转 诇砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Although he lost his wage with regard to the mentions of God鈥檚 name that he wrote in a faulty manner, did he lose his wage with regard to the entire Torah scroll, which he wrote correctly? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes, he lost his wage for the entire Torah scroll, as any Torah scroll in which the mentions of God鈥檚 name have not been written with the proper intention is not worth anything.

讜诇讬注讘专 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诇讬拽讚砖讬讛 讻诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But let the scribe pass a reed pen [kulemos] with additional ink over instances of God鈥檚 name and sanctify them, going over the names with the proper intention. And since there is no option to correct the Torah scroll in this manner, in accordance with whose opinion was this ruling issued? Shall we say that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

讚转谞谉 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讻转讜讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讟注讛 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 讘讜 讚诇转 诪注讘讬专 注诇讬讜 拽讜诇诪讜住 讜诪拽讚砖讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛砖诐 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

This is as we learned in a baraita: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text that he needed to write the name of God, spelled yod, heh, vav, heh; and he erred and intended to write Yehuda, spelled yod, heh, vav, dalet, heh, but he made a mistake when writing Yehuda and did not place a dalet in the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then he should pass over it with a reed pen. He writes over what was written and sanctifies it with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds a second layer of ink, the name has not been written in the optimal manner. The fact that Rabbi Ami did not offer the option to rewrite the mentions of God鈥檚 name to correct the scroll indicates that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘讞讚讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪谞讜诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: You can even say that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but there is a distinction between the cases. Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only with regard to a single mention of God鈥檚 name that was initially written without the proper intention. In such a case, it is possible to pass over the name with additional ink and thereby sanctify it. But passing over all of the holy names found in an entire Torah scroll is not possible. Why not? Because if the scribe would pass his pen over all the names of God found in a Torah scroll, it would look speckled, as the instances of Divine Name would be written with a thicker layer of ink and stand out.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘转讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讙讜讬诇讬谉 砖诇讜 诇讗 注讬讘讚转讬诐 诇砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讬讚 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 砖讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 砖讻专讱 讗转讛 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛

It is further related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: With regard to the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not process its parchment with the proper intention. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is in the possession of the buyer. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Since you are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you have admitted that the parchment upon which the Torah scroll was written is invalid, you are deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., disqualify, the Torah scroll.

Scroll To Top